All Means "ALL"

A Candid Look at OSAS "Support"

When addressing the erroneous doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved, one will often hear, "All means ALL." This statement is usually made in reference to two Scriptures.

ALL Will Be Raised

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:39-40

Jesus describes those who will be raised on the last day in two ways:

They have been given to Him by the Father = They have seen Jesus and believe on Him.

God is Faithful

A Candid Look at OSAS "Support"

Another statement that is made in trying to support OSAS is that God is faithful. To this I say, "Amen!" God is faithful to do all and everything He says that He will. He is not a liar, nor does He break His promises. His word stands sure.

The issue with the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine is not the faithfulness of God, but the faithfulness of man. The word of God is clear that even after salvation, man can:

• Draw back from the faith (Hebrews 10:38)
• Have his faith overthrown (II Timothy 2:18)
• Cast off his faith (I Timothy 5:12)
• Have his faith made shipwreck (I Timothy 1:19)
• Fall into unbelief (Romans 11:20-22, Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 4:6-11)
  

Eternal Life is "Eternal"

A Candid Look at OSAS "Support"

Another peculiar statement that is made from supporters of the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine is that eternal life is "eternal". This is a strawman argument where people are debating against positions that no one holds.

While it sounds sort of snazzy (YES, that is a word!) to say, "If we can lose it, then it is not eternal.", such a comment is really a Non Sequitur. It is a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

Who are the ones claiming that eternal life is really not eternal? Those who dispute OSAS are not calling into question the attributes of the life given, but man's receipt of it.

Predestined by God

A Candid Look at OSAS "Support"

Predestination is the understanding that God has pre-determined or foreordained how events unfold in this world. This is completely true. However, some take this truth a step farther and claim that this also relates to how God creates mankind. They state that God has created some persons expressly for the purpose of being saved and others expressly for the purpose of being damned; leaving man with no choice in the matter. This belief is unScriptural.

This false doctrine is used to claim that we are unconditionally, eternally secure in salvation because we have either been designed by God to be saved or to be damned. This is an expansive topic, which I will surely not cover adequately in this post. However, in order to show how the Biblical understanding of predestination in no way implies Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS), I must address common misconceptions.

You Cannot Be "Unborn"

A Candid Look at OSAS "Support"

The statement that one cannot be "unborn" as a defense to Once Saved, Always Saved has to be one of the most puzzling arguments presented. It is a completely illogical assertion for even in the natural, there is no such condition as being "unborn".

Being born is the process whereby life is made manifest. The opposite of having life is not to be "unborn", but to be dead. Just as one dies physically when life is no longer present, one also dies spiritually when the life of Christ is no longer present within.

We Can Only Lose our Reward

A Candid Look at OSAS "Support"

Another claim people make is that we can only lose our rewards, but not salvation itself. We are pointed to I Corinthians Chapter 3 as proof of this assertion, but is that what the text is really saying?

The Chapter begins with Paul chastising the church for being carnal and forming allegiances according to the various ministries of men. They were trying to judge amongst themselves which ministry was greater. Paul's answer? None of them were greater. He tries to impress upon the people that their focus is misplaced; it is not the minister to whom they should be aligned, but to the Lord.

To make this point, Paul uses two analogies. His first analogy is that of a garden.